Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thomas Lamb]

So it looks like I will have somewhere near 100 channels to replace between mics and IEMs (60 mics 40 IEMS). So I'm going to get started on my replacement budget and plan what those replacements will be. I'm thinking that we will see some interesting offerings from the manufacturers over the next year and it will be interesting to see what frequencies are the best to use (Shure coming back out with VHF)

When are you guys going to start phasing out existing inventory?

Anybody heard rumors of rebates or are we on our own this time?

I know we are still 3-4 years from having to completely vacate but it has been stated that in metropolitan markets interference could happen as early as 3q 2017. Random interference? 

[Tim McCulloch]

So it looks like I will have somewhere near 100 channels to replace between mics and IEMs (60 mics 40 IEMS). So I'm going to get started on my replacement budget and plan what those replacements will be. I'm thinking that we will see some interesting offerings from the manufacturers over the next year and it will be interesting to see what frequencies are the best to use (Shure coming back out with VHF)

When are you guys going to start phasing out existing inventory?

Anybody heard rumors of rebates or are we on our own this time?

I know we are still 3-4 years from having to completely vacate but it has been stated that in metropolitan markets interference could happen as early as 3q 2017. Random interference?

We were about to roll on some Senny G band.  Glad Henry posted about this.

[Brad Harris]

I'd be more interested to see what the FCC and manufacturers can come up with about equipment use in the guard bands being left in the "600"MHz range.

Sadly, from all that I've heard and read, any current equipment is prohibited from operation once that spectrum is up and running in its new configuration, even if/though we can make it play nicely in the gaps, only because it could tune to an allocated space of spectrum that is no longer available for 'mic' usage.

For rental/production/content companies that are larger in the regional and national business, now their fleets of 100's of channels of RF and comms won't be legal to supply for events in many markets as it takes time for manufacturers to redevelop, test, and get certified products out in the new UHF landscape, if they haven't put product in the other unlicenced bands (DECT, 900MHz, 1.4GHz, etc) and VHF and other licensed bands where mics are allowed to operate (VHF)

Does that mean there will be 18 versions of say Senn "B" bands or Shure "K4/J50". Maybe a compromise could be that receivers could be full spectrum (such as current Shure Axient/Senn 3000|5000|9000) and transmitters be specific?

Would IEM/IFB belt packs have enough room inside to be that spectral efficient, and then what about antennas for the packs?


Even up here in Canada, I'm recently now noticing bandwidth being used in public use buildings (mainly sporting event facilities) in the 700MHz spectrum that we had to vacate half a decade ago.....

And we all know that RF doesn't stop at the border .... (Southern BC/Ontario)


/ramblings

BRad

[Keith Broughton]

I'd be more interested to see what the FCC and manufacturers can come up with about equipment use in the guard bands being left in the "600"MHz range.

Sadly, from all that I've heard and read, any current equipment is prohibited from operation once that spectrum is up and running in its new configuration, even if/though we can make it play nicely in the gaps, only because it could tune to an allocated space of spectrum that is no longer available for 'mic' usage.

For rental/production/content companies that are larger in the regional and national business, now their fleets of 100's of channels of RF and comms won't be legal to supply for events in many markets as it takes time for manufacturers to redevelop, test, and get certified products out in the new UHF landscape, if they haven't put product in the other unlicenced bands (DECT, 900MHz, 1.4GHz, etc) and VHF and other licensed bands where mics are allowed to operate (VHF)

Does that mean there will be 18 versions of say Senn "B" bands or Shure "K4/J50". Maybe a compromise could be that receivers could be full spectrum (such as current Shure Axient/Senn 3000|5000|9000) and transmitters be specific?

Would IEM/IFB belt packs have enough room inside to be that spectral efficient, and then what about antennas for the packs?


Even up here in Canada, I'm recently now noticing bandwidth being used in public use buildings (mainly sporting event facilities) in the 700MHz spectrum that we had to vacate half a decade ago.....

And we all know that RF doesn't stop at the border .... (Southern BC/Ontario)


/ramblings

BRad

Fortunately, for us here in Canada, there is a bit of a lag as we follow the US model so we can keep using existing gear for a while yet.
It will be interesting to see the new offerings from the manufacturers. I have been looking at the ULXD VHF product as a good place to start.

[Lyle Williams]

If selling gear, it would be worth while considering international markets.  Eg, down here in Australia we have just completed a TV channel restack to free up 700MHz, but this has resulted in more than half the TV transmitters being in the 600MHz space.  Down here, it will (probably) be a long long time before there is another restack, so Sennheiser B band is fine by me.

That might let people sell gear without having to hope the buyer is poorly informed about future US spectrum access.

[David Sturzenbecher]

Do we know if the 600MHz band will be fully shut down (like the 700MHZ) or will it be up to each user to navigate their local seas?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Henry Cohen]

I'd be more interested to see what the FCC and manufacturers can come up with about equipment use in the guard bands being left in the "600"MHz range.

Manufacturers are working on "location aware" technologies so that a receiver will know what market it's in, and therefore which guard band and duplex gap frequency ranges are available. It's looking like the receiver will need one or more of GPS, internet connectivity and/or cellular system connectivity in order determine it's location.

Sadly, from all that I've heard and read, any current equipment is prohibited from operation once that spectrum is up and running in its new configuration, even if/though we can make it play nicely in the gaps, only because it could tune to an allocated space of spectrum that is no longer available for 'mic' usage.

Correct.

For rental/production/content companies that are larger in the regional and national business, now their fleets of 100's of channels of RF and comms won't be legal to supply for events in many markets as it takes time for manufacturers to redevelop, test, and get certified products out in the new UHF landscape, if they haven't put product in the other unlicenced bands (DECT, 900MHz, 1.4GHz, etc) and VHF and other licensed bands where mics are allowed to operate (VHF)

Manufacturers have been heavily into development of alternative bands as the FCC has identified them. Several of these bands are either expansions of existing bands (e.g. 944-952 is now 941-960), or bands that manufacturers already make product for in other world markets (e.g. 1.5GHz). Some of these new bands will be on the market within the year, others are several years out due to regulatory and coordination/registration mechanism development.

On a pedantic note, "DECT" is not a frequency band; rather it's a transmission scheme. DECT products exist in several different bands throughout the world, 900MHz, 1.9GHz and 6GHz being the most popular.

Does that mean there will be 18 versions of say Senn "B" bands or Shure "K4/J50". Maybe a compromise could be that receivers could be full spectrum (such as current Shure Axient/Senn 3000|5000|9000) and transmitters be specific?

See comment above about location awareness. The initial goal is to have a single receiver model cover an entire band, with transmitters broken down into sub-bands as required. So your XYZ manufacturer model options might be a SKU each for:
Hi-VHF (174-216)
UHF (470-698) with location awareness
900MHz (902-928 & 941-960, or this might be two separate SKU's)
1.4GHz (1.435-1.525GHz)
6GHz

Not so different from having three to four different UHF splits (the new capital investment differing antenna/RF distribution infrastructure notwithstanding).

Would IEM/IFB belt packs have enough room inside to be that spectral efficient, and then what about antennas for the packs?

Why would this be any different than now?

And we all know that RF doesn't stop at the border .... (Southern BC/Ontario)

It doesn't? It stops at the walls of the venue 

[Henry Cohen]

Do we know if the 600MHz band will be fully shut down (like the 700MHZ) or will it be up to each user to navigate their local seas?

Not the entire band. There will be slivers of spectrum within the 11MHz wide duplex gap (4MHz for licensed, 7MHz for unlicensed operation shared with TVBD/WSD's) and 1MHz guard bands (unlicensed operation shared with TVBD/WSD's). Equipment will be restricted to operation only in those bands available in a market by market basis (see my comment in my prior post about location awareness).

[Cailen Waddell]

I have about 40 channels of RF spread amongst the facilities whose systems I manage....   Lucky for us, except for some shure J1 band ULX stuff, we aren't in the auctioned spectrum.  Of course how local broadcasters repack will impact us....   I anticipate we will retire the oldest gear, move the nicer existing gear to facilities where we only need a couple freq's and then replace the nice gear from the PACs that we spread around with new gear that can get the density I need in the available bands...  Still I don't envy anyone needing to find 60 freq's for their show in a major market....  That's going to be difficult at best I would imagine. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ProSoundWeb Community]